;)
Both Sides Now: IMB & “Faith Missions”
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life, Church & Missions
In the late 1960’s, Joni Mitchell released the plaintive, quasi-nihilistic ballad “Both Sides Now,” which concludes with the following lyrics:
————————–
I’ve looked at life from both sides now,
from win and lose, and still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall.
I really don’t know life at all.
In some ways, I can identify with the sentiment expressed here, especially when it comes to Christian missions. Though there are certainly more than just two sides to the multitude of complex issues facing Christians who are serious about fulfilling the Great Commission, and working to put the resources God has commended into our hands to the best use for world evangelization, I can (at least, in certain aspects) say, “I’ve looked at missions from both sides now…”
Before I was married, I was a summer missions volunteer in Europe on three different occasions, and then, for two years on the missionary ship M. V. Doulos in Europe and West Africa, working with the interdenominational missions organization Operation Mobilization. I also logged in 4 ½ years of missionary service in Spain, together with my wife Kelly, serving with the now defunct Bible Christian Union (or BCU—subsequently merged with TEAM: The Evangelical Alliance Mission). After this, we applied with and were accepted by the IMB, serving the last 13 ½ years of our ministry in Spain as IMB career missionaries. In addition, down through the years, I have had the privilege of serving on an assortment of short-term (1–3 weeks) mission trips in various locations.
I am very aware that this combined experience does not make me an expert on all facets of world missions—far from it. There are many very important areas of the world and aspects of missions in which I have virtually no experience at all. I have, however, experienced life as an IMB missionary and life as a missionary with other organizations. And, though my experience is, no doubt, not the same as that of many others, I believe I may have a bit of insight into the reality of doing missions “from both sides now.”
At one time (it seems to me to be less the case now than before, at least in many situations), among certain Southern Baptists, it was looked on as almost taboo to do missions outside of the established denominational channels. The whole concept of the Cooperative Program, it was thought (or at least, implied), depended on the solidarity and loyalty of all Southern Baptists, and those who colored outside of the lines were looked on with a certain degree of suspicion. The so-called “society method” was looked on almost as a swear word. During the years of the Conservative Resurgence, several SBC leaders (notably among them, Charles Stanley) were excoriated in certain circles for sending out and supporting missionaries serving with non-SBC entities.
Many of the organizations affiliated with the old IFMA (Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association of North America), now CrossGlobal Link, and EFMA (the Evangelical Fellowship of Missions Agencies), now The Mission Exchange, have traditionally called themselves “faith missions,” accentuating the fact that their financial support came largely from monthly “faith” pledges and one-time gifts given for the support of individual missionaries. Some Southern Baptists (and others) have taken umbrage at this term, claiming it implies that those who are not “faith missionaries,” and do not operate by the same funding principles, do not live by faith. At the same time, so-called “faith missionaries” have sometimes felt slighted by the term “independent missionaries” often used by Southern Baptists, claiming they do not view themselves as operating independently, but rather in solidarity with the rest of the Body of Christ.
For me, the bottom line, after my years of experience in both worlds, is that we are all part of the same Body of Christ, and need to learn more and more to accept and appreciate the gifts and contributions of each toward the world missions enterprise and the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Aware that my experience is not necessarily the same as that of others, here are a few of the advantages and disadvantages I have observed and lived through on both sides:
Financial Support. If you are able to make it all the way through the appointment process with the IMB, it is nice to know that you have a more or less guaranteed monthly salary and support package, including retirement and health benefits, that many, if not most, “faith missions” cannot offer. With most “faith missions,” you have to beat the bushes and find support partners, which, for many people, can prove extremely challenging. Kelly and I were blessed to have a circle of friends and contacts, including our home church, that were willing to take on our support, without a whole lot of time spent in deputation, when we first went out with BCU. But, with many, this is not the case. Especially, with some from Southern Baptist or other denominational backgrounds, their home churches and circle of contacts are not used to the “faith mission” system, and, as a result, are slower to put you in their missions budget.
Also, our salary and overall support package was quite a bit higher with the IMB than with BCU. Though even IMB missionaries, as a general rule, have a modest lifestyle compared to many, if not most, pastors in the States, they are generally better supported than many “faith missionaries.” I have seen exceptions to this, though. And, according to recent reports from the field, as a result of the recent budget crunch, it appears many “faith missionaries” may be able to access Stateside funding for ministry projects more easily than IMB workers.
A “myth” that I have heard disseminated by many Southern Baptists is that “faith missionaries” are always so busy writing letters to their supporters and trying to raise support that they hardly have time for ministry on the field. In my experience, the amount of paperwork and administrative reporting expected of IMB workers and “faith missionaries” is about the same.
Prayer Support. The IMB, as a large organization, representing a large constituency (the churches of the SBC), is able to do a lot of topnotch publicity and communication, with the purpose of raising prayer support for workers and work on the mission field. However, as Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” What this means, in practical day-to-day parlance, is that, in many cases, those who financially support individual missionaries in a direct manner (such as through monthly “faith” pledges) tend to be more committed to keeping up with them and their ministry, and praying for them regularly and diligently, as well. Also, though there are notable exceptions to the rule, “faith missionaries” seem to be more intrinsically motivated to send out prayer letters and correspond with their supporters back home. They know that, to a certain extent, their continued support on the field depends on it. And, from my perspective, this can be a good thing.
Having said that, I must say that the IMB is very aware of this dynamic, and has taken some really good steps in recent years toward “personalizing” missions as much as possible, and really emphasizing the importance of prayer in all that they do.
Administrative and Pastoral Support. Once again, as a large organization, with a relatively large pool of resources, the IMB is able to provide some things in this area that many other organizations are not able to provide. By the same token, though, large organizations can, at times, prove to be a bit unwieldy at getting the personalized care that some people may need to them in certain circumstances. In large organizations, it is easier to become a number than a name.
I am not saying the IMB has any endemic problem with taking care of its workers. There are some tremendous people working with pastoral care in the IMB, and, for the most part, there is a good family environment and camaraderie among the workers. But, all in all, a larger organization is always going to have a bit of a different feel about it, in this area, than a smaller one.
Organizational Stability. It is good to feel, as an on-field missionary, that the organization with which you are working has a good understanding of the work to which you have been assigned, and is, in general, stable and consistent in the way it goes about things.
For many years, the IMB was regarded as the paragon of organizational stability on the mission field. However, along with organizational stability can sometimes come a corresponding lack of strategic creativity, which, if not checked, can devolve into organizational stagnation. To a large degree, the visionary leadership of Jerry Rankin and his team of coworkers in Richmond foresaw this danger, and successfully averted it. However, some people would say that, at the same time, the high level of organizational stability IMB workers and supporters were accustomed to took a pretty big hit in the meantime.
That is not to say that, as a general rule, “faith missions” are any better, in this regard, than the IMB. As a matter of fact, many look to the IMB as a trendsetter, and aspire to reach the level of excellence in this area that the IMB has traditionally modeled.
Mission Strategy. To a big extent, a large denominational mission board such as the IMB carries along with it, pretty much by default, a corresponding responsibility to represent a relatively broad scope of people, ministries, and concerns. Smaller organizations, which are not necessarily beholden to a predetermined constituency (such as the SBC at large), are free to be more entrepreneurial in their approach and to specialize in certain aspects of Great Commission ministry.
When Kelly and I were first appointed as missionaries with BCU, they worked exclusively planting churches through teamwork in Western Europe. In many ways, this was a good thing. The heart and vision of the key decision-makers in the organization were right in line with our own ministry heart and vision. However, there is also something to be said for being a part of an organization with a global vision. Many times, you have access to creative resources, people, and ideas that smaller, more specialized organizations do not. The danger, which has often been expressed to me by fellow IMB workers, is that models and mindsets that have been successful in one part of the world can be imported to other contexts in other parts of the world as the silver bullet for missionary strategy. However, what works in East Asia does not necessarily work in Western Europe, and, it may be harder for a big global organization like the IMB to recognize this.
Coworker Compatibility. Many who have spent the vast majority of their life and ministry working in more or less exclusively SBC circles have expressed to me the idea that it would be hard for them to work, side by side, on a missionary team with people from other church and denominational backgrounds. In our particular case, though, Kelly and I did not find it any more difficult to get along with and work on the same page with people in an interdenominational setting than in a strictly denominational setting. We have found that, even among IMB workers, core values and ways of thinking about ministry can be very different, even to the point of mutual incompatibility. Even though you may have all signed off on the BF&M, it doesn’t mean you necessarily see eye-to-eye on any number of issues that arise among missionaries on the field. Some of this has to do with personality styles. But, from what I understand, the number one cause of missionary attrition is on-field conflicts with coworkers. And, I don’t think IMB workers are any more immune to this than those working in interdenominational “faith missions.”
By the same token, with much prayer and careful planning, it is possible to find a team of coworkers with which there is marvelous compatibility, both within the IMB as well as within interdenominational “faith missions.” And, there are some cases where certain individuals can be great friends, but, due to philosophical differences, not so great fellow team members.
I would also add that in both the IMB and the other mission agencies I have been a part of there have been people appointed to missionary service who somehow slipped through cracks in the personnel appointment process who had no business at all being on the mission field. But, by the same token, in both situations, I have also had the joy and privilege of knowing and working together with some of the most wonderful, gifted, humble servants of God I have ever met.
On-field Cooperative Relationships. When we first were appointed by the IMB, IMB workers pretty much worked exclusively with our “Baptist partners” (i.e. national Baptist unions) on the field. This, although a good thing in many aspects, also proved to be quite limiting in others. Back in the day, when national Baptist leaders said, “jump,” IMB workers asked, “how high”? With New Directions at the IMB, all that changed. We were now free to follow the strategy priorities of the IMB, no matter what local Baptists thought about them, as well as to work with other GCCs (or Great Commission Christians).
In my opinion, this was a needed corrective. In many cases, the priorities of national Baptist unions and their leadership did not really facilitate the missionary calling of IMB workers, and many were frustrated in their ministry as a result. But, unfortunately, in many cases, the medicine turned out to be worse than the sickness. Long-term relationships and partnerships were abruptly ended, and IMB workers found themselves, for whatever reason, to be working “behind the backs” of national partners from years back.
From what I have been able to pick up, the pendulum has swung a bit more toward the middle regarding all this in recent years. There are still many hurt feelings, though, and national pastors and leaders who feel they have been “orphaned” by the IMB.
In the case of interdenominational “faith missions,” I have seen some of them be able to establish solid, healthy working relationships with national leaders and churches (including local Baptists), and others maintain a more isolationist approach.
And… I could go on and on about the differences between working with the IMB and interdenominational “faith missions.” If anyone wants to ask further questions in the comment stream, I am open to talking about other aspects. But, the general idea I want to get across in this post is that God is doing a wonderful work around the world both through the IMB and through the scores of interdenominational and other evangelical organizations out there. Some who may feel called into international missions may find the doors closed, for one reason or another, to service with the IMB. That is not necessarily the end of the story, though. God may have a wonderful place of service for you with some other group.
Also, while I am definitely a supporter of the Cooperative Program, the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, and Southern Baptist missions in general, I would encourage churches and individual Southern Baptists to not be closed-minded about supporting those who believe God is leading them to serve through other channels.
And, once again, I don’t by any means claim to have all the answers. “I’ve looked at missions from both sides now, from ‘faith missions’ and IMB, and still somehow, it’s missions’ illusions I recall. I really don’t know missions at all.”
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Good post, David.
This is a really good post David. The only thing I would disagree about would be the level of pastoral care. The IMB provides better pastoral care than anyone else in our region. Whenever significant issues arise I have often been asked to step in and provide resources to other teams who had none. I have been contacted three times in the last year to counsel by other agency leaders who did not have the resources to get anyone on the ground.
Other than that this is a really balanced post.
Most excellent post, David!
I worked with the IMB for three years then went independent once they started backing out of student ministry here in Manila. I’ve been doing the “faith missions” model now for over five years.
I think you’ve explained the pros and cons much better than I ever could.
One thing I will say: I do enjoy the freedom to do what I feel God has called me to do without concern over getting “re-assigned” to something else.
David,
Great article. I found it very helpful and enlightening. Out of curiosity, did you ever run across self-funded “missionaries,” that is, people who go overseas and get a job to sustain them there with the full intention of engaging in missionary activity?
Andrew- I have a friend who is a lawyer who set up his practice in the West to run without him so he could serve full-time but there are not too many who can do that. Everyone I know who has tried to make business work in that way end up doing business and making a living and having very little impact on the Kingdom. There are exceptions of course, but since most of the world’s lost also live in areas of poverty and injustice that makes for profit business tough.
Strider,
When I wrote that section, I didn’t feel quite right about the way it turned out, for the very reason you bring up here. But, since I was in a hurry to get the post on-line, I went ahead and left it as is.
I agree with you that the IMB pastoral care department is second-to-none, and that many smaller organizations, due to lack of resources, are not able to provide anything like the care the IMB offers in this area. I guess what I was trying to get across is that there is a different “feel” about a smaller organization as opposed to a larger organization, independently of who that larger organization may happen to be.
Kevin,
Glad that things are working out for you to fulfill your ministry calling there in the Philippines. Though I am not insinuating this is the case for you, what you say here reminds me of another point I didn’t bring up in the post. It is a good thing to have a good accountability structure on the field. Some “faith missionaries” (not all!) are pretty much independent operators on the field. Even with IMB, before New Directions, I have observed cases where on-field missionaries were pretty much left to themselves far away from watchful eyes. In some cases, this proved to be a recipe for disaster. In my opinion, the best solution is to find a good accountability structure with an organization that shares your core values and vision for ministry.
Andrew,
Yes, I have known various people who worked as “tentmakers” on the international mission field. In general, I think this is a good idea, and may be the best option for many. Yet, as Strider mentions above, it is not always as easy as it may appear at first. And many overseas jobs require such dedication of time and energy there is very little left over for effective ministry. I would also include here a similar word as what I say in my comment to Kevin about the need for accountability. It is tempting to think if you are financially independent, then you don’t need ministry accountability. But such is not the case. However, on-field local churches and/or pastors may help to fill the void for some.
Also, are you familiar with what Larry McCrary and Caleb Crider are doing with the Skybridge Community for “tentmakers” in Europe? If not, you should check it out here:
http://www.skybridgecommunity.net/
Andrew,
Another issue with “tent making” overseas can be the differences in the economy. In other words, developing countries are usually going to have much lower salaries.
David,
You do bring up a good point re: accountability.
I’ll elaborate a little further on my “re-assigned” comment. My particular region was undergoing a great deal of restructuring not long after I arrived. I saw a lot of people being moved around.
Here’s something else you said which I’ll chime in on:
“The danger, which has often been expressed to me by fellow IMB workers, is that models and mindsets that have been successful in one part of the world can be imported to other contexts in other parts of the world as the silver bullet for missionary strategy.”
This is what happened with my particular ministry–student work. When I left the IMB it was all about “church planting movements” (CPM). Don’t know if it’s still this way or not. Anyway, the CPM model just doesn’t quite work for student ministry (at least not in my context). Cell group Bible studies work very well, but cooperating with existing churches is the strategy I’ve now chosen.
CPM seems to work very well for rural farm villages, but like you said, I’m a little concerned about the “silver bullet” mentality.
Strider, David, and Kevin,
Thanks for the input. I haven’t looked too much at “tent-making” as a way for doing ministry. I know one person who was a Journeyman in Spain and has since gone back to work there, but that is the extent of my knowledge.
I have thought about how it would be possible to work in South America while employed for the government or some large organization, but nothing that planned out. My current focus is on gaining ministry experience and getting a seminary education.
In places that are totally devastated by poverty with very little infrastructure, I can see how it would be difficult to find work besides making nativities for the WMU catalog.
I had lunch last week with a guy from New Tribes Mission. He said it typically takes a year or two to raise support before one of their missionaries goes to the field. I really like the way NTM does careful contextualization. Any of you who have seen the EE-Taow video about Mark Zook and the Moak tribal people know about NTM’s methodology. The Moak people were actually a cargo cult before Mark Zook carefully contextualized the gospel for them using chronological Bible teaching, not chronological storying. In regard to funding trends and methodology, Tom Steffen and Lois McKinney Douglas commented:
“The tremendous influx of short-termers has impacted not only career Christian workers but nationals as well. . . . In collective societies where relationships rule, where the amount of time spent with someone signifies the level of intimacy, where privacy is virtually unheard of, ministry effectiveness is impaired. . . . With an estimated 1.6 million short-termers going out internationally from US churches in 2005, a significant amount of funding once tagged for long-term ministries has been siphoned from their side of the ledger, making them an endangered species. . . . Funding for Long-Term Missionaries Will Slowly Dry Up. With many North American churches making missions a low priority, with the increase in short-termers eating up a growing percentage of the mission budget, with it taking around two years to raise needed support, career missionaries are seeking alternative ways to pay the bills. . . . Move over fully paid positions; bivocationalism is back!”
Tom Steffen and Lois McKinney Douglas, Encountering Missionary Life and Work: Preparing for Intercultural Ministry (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 350-351.
Best wishes,
Mike Morris (aka Baptist Theologue)
Mike,
Interesting quote from Steffen and McKinney Douglas. I seem to remember asking sometime before here at IMPACT if anyone had access to any hard statistical evidence on the impact of the big increase in short-term missions for the funding of long-term workers. Do Steffen and McKinney Douglas present any such evidence in their book?
Also, it seems to me that this impact (if demonstrable) would have an effect not only on long-term “faith missionaries,” but also on IMB funding. For a long time, I have wondered to what extent that factor may be influencing our present funding crisis with the IMB.
Andrew,
I was very blessed in that I made the turnaround from IMB to independently funded in about six weeks. But my case was unusual in that I already had a good base of prayer supporters who became financial supporters.
Mike and David,
I was under the impression that short-term projects positively influenced missions giving, but I could be wrong on that. I’d be interested to see some hard facts.
David and Kevin,
I’m not at the office right now, so I don’t have the book by Steffen and McKinney Douglas in front of me, but I do know that average Cooperative Program giving by SBC churches has gone from 10 percent in 1990 to 6 percent in 2008 (see “Cooperative Program Facing Economic Challenges,” Roger S. Oldham, SBC Life, Dec/Jan 2010).
Lottie Moon giving has had its ups and downs, but the ups have outnumbered the downs:
1995 89 million
1996 93 million
1997 100 million
1998 101.7 million
1999 105 million
2000 113.2 million
2001 113.7 million
2002 115 million
2003 136 million
2004 134 million
2005 138 million
2006 150.2 million
2007 150.4 million
2008 141 million
2009 149 million
I graphed out these totals for each year. Obviously, the bad economy has adversely affected the offering in the past few years. The largest percentage increase in growth was in 2003 (18.4 percent increase over 2002). One factor for the 2003 increase was given in a Baptist Press article: “IMB staff and missionaries have been blessed by testimonies of how God stirred both large and small churches to new level of sacrificial giving when they heard missionaries were being kept from the field for lack of finances, Rankin said” (Mark Kelly, “Lottie Moon Offering Projected up 18%-22% as Churches Respond,” March 11, 2004).
Interestingly, volunteer numbers were down in 2002: “The IMB saw a dramatic decrease in 2002 in the number of volunteers willing and able to serve in short-term overseas assignments, said Bill Cashion, director of the IMB’s volunteer office. A number of factors, including the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., led to a 50 percent decrease in the number of high school students participating in overseas projects, Cashion said. Even though the number of medical volunteers was up about 33 percent and collegiate volunteers were up 14 percent, the drop in high school participation helped plunged the total for 2002 to 26,767. Almost 34,000 Southern Baptists served overseas in short-term projects in 2001″ (Mark Kelly, “IMB Celebrates Overseas Advances, Covers Deficit Caused by Missionary Surge,” Jan. 28, 2003).
Numbers of IMB volunteers:
1997 17,265
1998 19,000
1999 25,000
2000 30,512
2001 33,700
2002 26,767
A 2006 Baptist Press article said the number of student volunteers has dropped: “In recent years, Davis explained, the numbers of young people volunteering have been ‘stagnant.’ ‘Numbers have dropped,’ he said. ‘We’re almost 1,500 less than last year [youth and college combined]‘” (Shawn Hendricks, “International Mission Board, ‘Fuge’ Camps Partner to Expand Youth Missions,” Dec. 4, 2006.
The following quote is from the Baptist Standard: “In 1975, the IMB reported only 1,200 missions volunteers. By the end of 2000, that number had soared to 30,362, an increase of 2,430 percent” (Mark Wingfield, “Bold Mission Thrust Comes to an End with a Few of Many Goals Realized,” Baptist Standard, June 25, 2001).
I’m not sure that there is any way to statistically tie growth in volunteers to growth in giving to long-term missionaries. I am hoping that for the sake of good contextualization that our people will prioritize long-term missions over short-term missions.
David: Quite curious if you are familiar with the 2002 CBF pamphlet Stand With Christ, the response of the CBF after the imposition of BFM 2000 on missionary field personnel and the resulted firing or early retirement of 80 odd SBC missionaries.
Keith Parks said then:
BFM 2000 and what the SBC was becoming contradicts its own heritage and constitution. Differences are many and significant
Suspicion has displaced trust
Control has displaced cooperation
Doctrine has displaced missions
Exclusion has displaced inclusion
Creedalism has displaced confessionalism
Politics has displaced fellowship.
Looking backward ten years out as you continue to think about missions just curious if your response to Parks has changed in last ten years or so? And by chance did the Stand With Christ Pamphlet cross your radar?
http://www.helwys.com/books/obrien_2.html
Stephen,
I have never read Stand with Christ, though I have a vague recollection of having heard about it at some time in the past.
I hesitate to make any response, having not actually read it.
But, regarding the general issue of the BF&M 2,000, and asking IMB missionaries to sign, first off, as I have stated before (either here at IMPACT or Love Each Stone, I don’t remember which), my dad was not in favor or requiring already appointed missionaries to sign retro-actively. I agree with him that the way all that shook out was unfortunate.
However, I do think that when you have an organization like the SBC, and the IMB, there has to be some standard by which to hold those who receive funding (i.e. SBC agency employees) accountable to the desires of those providing the funding (i.e. SBC churches), and, in regard to doctrine, that standard is the BF&M, and the current version of the BF&M approved by the majority of the churches is the 2,000 version. I am glad that historically, some flexibility has been shown on individual issues such as close/closed communion. But, I don’t see any way around having some sort of doctrinal accountability, as expressed in some written document, call it a creed or call it something else. If you, as a missionary candidate, find your personal views more compatible with those of some other organization, it is probably best that you apply with them and not the IMB.